Moosecakes:"Terrorists" makes it sound like an organized group, rather than the lone nutjob that it was. It's the difference between "gang beats up teenager" and "guy beats up teenager." Please make sure you get it right in the future subby.

stubby did get it right. You just don't understand words is all. People who are using violence to create terror and then justify it with reasoning used by terrorists are terrorists.

lennavan:Bontesla: As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

Well sure, other than the time the attacker said the only thing that drove this attack was his political agenda.

lennavan: "the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Bontesla: His goal must be to leverage political change

Ummm....

lennavan: we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe

But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people? This is a single isolated incident and isn't connected to a group (based on what we currently know). There was no plan for this particular incident to be a negotiating tool against the British. That's why it's more akin to a hate crime. Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

Now, suppose there was an increase of similar attacks carried out for the same reason. I'd say that the criteria for terrorism has been met.

Bontesla:Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism. Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.

Terrorism is a tool of leverage used to convince your opponent that it's too costly to not give in to your demands.

Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.

In fairness, the guy did say something along the lines of "this is what will happen to you". Look, I totally understand the position of you and everyone else who is hesitant to label an act of violence "terrorism". Yes, people have abused the term to justify everything from increases in defense spending to limiting or taking away rights. BUt that does not mean terrorist and terrorism do not exist. This is very small scale, but it does appear to be terrorism.

Nabb1:Bontesla: No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

Oh, come on.

People throw their children off of bridges and say that God told them to, and we just regard them as nutters. So he may indeed just be a nutter.

Nabb1:Bontesla: No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

Bontesla:lennavan: Bontesla: As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

Well sure, other than the time the attacker said the only thing that drove this attack was his political agenda.

lennavan: "the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Bontesla: His goal must be to leverage political change

Ummm....

lennavan: we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe

But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people? This is a single isolated incident and isn't connected to a group (based on what we currently know). There was no plan for this particular incident to be a negotiating tool against the British. That's why it's more akin to a hate crime. Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

Now, suppose there was an increase of similar attacks carried out for the same reason. I'd say that the criteria for terrorism has been met.

Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

weltallica:[i.imgur.com image 512x384]White IRA terrorists kill thousands in bombings over the decades, and no one worries. But if two black men kill one white man, and cry "something something Allah"... then EVERYONE LOSES THEIR MINDS.

on the surface I thought I might agree but then, I thought about it a bit more.

The irish/Ireland were part of the UK so it's more like domestic terrorism AKA- " they might be murderous bastards but they're OUR murderous bastards."the two killers did not look anything like other citizens and were hollering about a religion many people link to terrorism and all out war.

So in the end, I can't agree that people lose their minds over what has gone on prior, it's not just different players to them.See?

and never mind what I called the IRA - I was using it as an example not a label- don't try to drag me down THAT road.

Nabb1:Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

I get what you mean, but both sides are getting something out of the deal.

DROxINxTHExWIND:Bontesla: Public beheading, in and of itself, isn't terrorism. Neither is talking politics, religion, or video games while the beheading takes place.

Terrorism is a tool of leverage used to convince your opponent that it's too costly to not give in to your demands.

Some random guy killing someone else on the street and citing political reasons is more akin to a hate crime than it is terrorism.

In fairness, the guy did say something along the lines of "this is what will happen to you". Look, I totally understand the position of you and everyone else who is hesitant to label an act of violence "terrorism". Yes, people have abused the term to justify everything from increases in defense spending to limiting or taking away rights. BUt that does not mean terrorist and terrorism do not exist. This is very small scale, but it does appear to be terrorism.

How specifically is this act going to be used as leverage to achieve the specific goal of ending British soldiers from killing his people?

Based on what we currently know - it isn't.

So while he was motivated for a political cause - it doesn't appear that he had a goal other than retribution.

HotWingConspiracy:Nabb1: Bontesla: No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

Oh, come on.

People throw their children off of bridges and say that God told them to, and we just regard them as nutters. So he may indeed just be a nutter.

But, the guy didn't just say "my god wanted me to do this." He connected the attack to a political goal. That's terrorism.

Of course, that doesn't mean that he's not nutters. I'm pretty sure the 9/11 terrorists were nutters, too.

way south:/The way I see it: A terror attack is a crime designed to instill fear in an audience beyond those directly harmed./Terrorism is the application of these attacks towards a greater goal by some organization or authority./Filming a murder for others to broadcast as propaganda would meet my personal benchmark for terrorism.

Nabb1:Bontesla: lennavan: Bontesla: As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

Well sure, other than the time the attacker said the only thing that drove this attack was his political agenda.

lennavan: "the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Bontesla: His goal must be to leverage political change

Ummm....

lennavan: we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe

But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people? This is a single isolated incident and isn't connected to a group (based on what we currently know). There was no plan for this particular incident to be a negotiating tool against the British. That's why it's more akin to a hate crime. Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

Now, suppose there was an increase of similar attacks carried out for the same reason. I'd say that the criteria for terrorism has been met.

Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

Terrorists are using fear as a negotiating tool. In other words, they will stop terrorizing if you give them X.

Ned Stark:Ego edo infantia cattus: olithon20: As a Brit, I say that while this is a terrible incident, it doesn't really make me think "Oh god, Terrorists!'.

So a couple of complete nutters killed a poor guy and were stupid enough to hang around ranting and raving about it until they got taken down by the police. It's a shame, but it happens. Crazy is crazy, whatever flavour it comes in. They'll be punished in due course, and my deepest sympathies to the family, but otherwise, it's just one of those things. The media seem to be getting rather too excitable about it all, simply due to the supposed terrorism angle.

If there is a sudden rash of attacks, on military personnel or otherwise, I might be somewhat concerned, but otherwise, hey, crazy is crazy.

Ned Stark: soldier

Not terrorism.

Except that they were religious zealots making political statements, threatening future violence, and demanding as much media coverage as they could get... other than that, totally not terrorists.Oh, and he wasn't a soldier, he was a cadet.

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE?

Yep. Yep. Yep. So what?

Soldiers are legal targets, even if they are in training. Not terrorism.

No, if he was in ROTC in the United States he wouldn't be considered a solider.

And if Wikipedia's article on British cadets is accurate, a cadet isn't considered a solider in the United Kingdom:

Lady Indica:Mimic_Octopus: Lady Indica: I've seen one person beheaded on video. If you've not seen something like that, I STRONGLY urge you NOT to watch it. Not ever.

You'll live your whole life happier not seeing or hearing it. Please, just trust me on that one.

As to what happened...just holy fark. 0_0

gotta link to the video that scarred you for life ?

Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

I remember that video, probably '01 or '02 when Daniel Pearl got whacked. I went looking for the video thinking I could handle it myself, having watched dad skin animals in the basement when I was like 6 and having carried amputated limbs (in a bag) down to the hospital morgue when I worked as an OR nursing assistant.

I started to watch the video, up until the assassin started making small saw like cuts through the guy's windpipe with the serrated portion of his kabar. He probably didn't make it 1/8" of an inch through before I closed my eyes, and reached for the power button on the PC. I didn't even want to look at the monitor to close the media player. Rebooted it, and the first thing I did was delete that frickin' file.

That was the last time I even bothered with watching something like that. You just can't unsee that shiat.

lennavan:You don't understand how the threat of beheading random citizens in the streets until British soldiers stop killing his people counts as leverage?

I am sure the threat of that guy randomly beheading citizens is exactly zero. I also don't worry about the sandy hook guy shooting up my daughters school. I am pretty sure both of them sought infamy, but as far as lasting affects I can say they are nil.

lennavan:Lady Indica: Didn't scar me for life but then again it wasn't a spider. I've seen worse. But it's a pretty awful thing, much worse than most people expect. And if you're a fan of gore (not judging, not my thing) you've probably seen it. It was the Russian solider decapitated with a knife. Very up close, very graphic, with full audio. Again, not judging but I personally don't see any redeeming value in such content being available. Always hope the family never sees it. =\

Yeah, I saw that reporter (Daniel Pearl) get beheaded and I completely agree with you. The audio was what really sticks with you. I dunno why I watched that one but I won't watch anything like it again.

This. Saw it, wish everyday I could un-see it.

Fast forward to 4 years ago at a police academy in Texas: shown a video by a narco agent that shows a man being decapitated by Los Zetas for snitching.

lennavan:Bontesla: Murdering the cadet was the goal - and he justified that goal politically.

If murder was the sole goal, then why did he stick around and seek out cameras to make a statement?

Bontesla: But how is this attack being used as leverage to prevent the British soldiers from killing his people?

You don't understand how the threat of beheading random citizens in the streets until British soldiers stop killing his people counts as leverage?

I can't help you dude. You're too far derp.

Why did he stick around? Some people like to explain their motivation. Some people like a grand exit. Some people are nutters. I never argued that he was a man without reasons - merely that his reasons don't quite fit terrorism.

I understand the point that you're trying to make: he committed an act that creates fear and that act was motivated by a political reason therefore he committed the act in an attempt to achieve his political goal.

His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

Bontesla:DeathByGeekSquad: It's only shocking if you don't understand the world outside of your own border.

Wait, what?

It's pretty straightforward. They disabled their victim and hacked him to pieces in front of a crowd for maximum public exposure. That happens elsewhere in the world. If you understand that the action happens elsewhere in the world, and is employed by specific groups of people, when those groups of people influence or direct it to happen in your neck of the woods - it isn't that shocking.

lockers:Nabb1: Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

I get what you mean, but both sides are getting something out of the deal.

Exactly. One side is getting Allah and the other is getting killed. Fair dinkum.

Did you ever notice that in countries which are predominantly Moslem a group is singled out as not being the right KIND of Moslem and that seves as justification to bomb their mosques - especially when occupied.

PghThermal:Did you ever notice that in countries which are predominantly Moslem a group is singled out as not being the right KIND of Moslem and that seves as justification to bomb their mosques - especially when occupied.

R.A.Danny:lockers: Nabb1: Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

I get what you mean, but both sides are getting something out of the deal.

Exactly. One side is getting Allah and the other is getting killed. Fair dinkum.

I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say it is negotiation. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is quid pro quo. Both sides do, in fact, get something out of that deal.

lockers:R.A.Danny: lockers: Nabb1: Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

I get what you mean, but both sides are getting something out of the deal.

Exactly. One side is getting Allah and the other is getting killed. Fair dinkum.

I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say it is negotiation. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is quid pro quo. Both sides do, in fact, get something out of that deal.

R.A.Danny:lockers: R.A.Danny: lockers: Nabb1: Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

I get what you mean, but both sides are getting something out of the deal.

Exactly. One side is getting Allah and the other is getting killed. Fair dinkum.

I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say it is negotiation. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is quid pro quo. Both sides do, in fact, get something out of that deal.

eraser8:HotWingConspiracy: Nabb1: Bontesla: No, I'm arguing that he isn't using terror to leverage political change. Hence, he shouldn't be classified as a terrorist until sufficient evidence arises to illustrate that he was using terror to leverage political change.

Merely having a political agenda during the attack is insufficient. His goal must be to leverage political change by committing this act.

As it stands - we don't have sufficient evidence to conclude that the attacker's political agenda drove this very attack.

He could have been claiming to be a Martian and jabbering about our invasion of his home planet Mars. It's effectively the same story.

Oh, come on.

People throw their children off of bridges and say that God told them to, and we just regard them as nutters. So he may indeed just be a nutter.

But, the guy didn't just say "my god wanted me to do this." He connected the attack to a political goal. That's terrorism.

Of course, that doesn't mean that he's not nutters. I'm pretty sure the 9/11 terrorists were nutters, too.

He gave motive. It doesn't appear that he had a plan to translate his motive into a political goal (based off of what we currently know). Motive isn't the same thing as an objective or goal.

Had he been working with other people to help him carry out a plan to achieve political goals then we'd have a different story.

Here's an analogy that could help explain the subtly:

Imagine a homophobic guy that killed someone for being gay. This isn't terrorism - it's a hate crime. Now imagine he said, "As long as your kind exist, my kind will be there to kill you for your sins." This isn't terrorism. It's motive. Now suppose he said, "All of society will pay until the guys are purged and my buddies will make sure of it." That's terrorism. Subtle differences.

That is pretty farking brutal. I can't get over the part where the woman just walks right by the bloody, machete-wielding dude as if nothing is happening. o_O

It's hard to tell from the short videos what really happened. I can't say if this fits the bill for "terrorism", "mental illness" or "overdose of bath salts" but I hope the perp never sees daylight again. Ugh.

His rantings could be interpreted to be an act of retribution. He wasn't making a specific threat or promise that every would be subject to something similar until the British stopped killing his med. He wasn't working with anyone to carry out goals (that we know of). Effectively, the threat ended with him. Either he had no goal or the murder was the goal.

You could not possibly be any more wrong.

FTFA - ... He added: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don't care about you."

Bontesla:Imagine a homophobic guy that killed someone for being gay. This isn't terrorism - it's a hate crime. Now imagine he said, "As long as your kind exist, my kind will be there to kill you for your sins." This isn't terrorism. It's motive. Now suppose he said, "All of society will pay until the guys are purged and my buddies will make sure of it." That's terrorism. Subtle differences.

You're making the mistake of assuming there's a bright line between what constitutes terrorism and what constitutes a hate crime. There isn't. The totality of the circumstances have to be weighed when the State makes a decision about which class or crime -- if either -- the offense belongs to.

In the case as you described it, seems more of a hate crime than terrorism. But, changing only a few words shifts the balance.

Imagine, instead, the offender said, "until the government outlaws same sex marriage, my kind will be there to kill gays for their sins."

R.A.Danny:lockers: R.A.Danny: lockers: Nabb1: Terrorism is not a "negotiating tool." It's the polar opposite of negotiation. Negotiation means there is some give and take. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is not really a quid pro quo.

I get what you mean, but both sides are getting something out of the deal.

Exactly. One side is getting Allah and the other is getting killed. Fair dinkum.

I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say it is negotiation. "Do what we want and we won't cut off people's heads in the street" is quid pro quo. Both sides do, in fact, get something out of that deal.